W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2005

The nature of XML Namespaces: Do they have "terms" == "two-part names"?

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:12:39 +0000
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bhd93d1lk.fsf_-_@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This paragraph in [1] has provoked some pushback:

  "The terms in a namespace are two-part identifiers consisting of a
   namespace name (a URI) and a local name (an NCName as defined in
   [XML Namespaces]). Using a URI leverages the well-understood URI
   allocation mechanisms of [WebArch Vol 1]."

The Namespace REC [2] itself defines an *XML Namespace* as

   "An *XML namespace* is a collection of names, identified by a URI
    reference" [which is later given the name *namespace name*]

Accordingly I propose we change the paragraph in question to read:

  "An XML Namespace is a collection of local names (each an NCName as
   defined in [XML Namespaces]) identified by a namespace name (a
   URI).  Using URIs to identify namespaces leverages the
   well-understood URI allocation mechanisms of [WebArch Vol 1]."

If we think we should also refer to the issue of mapping to URIs, I
would suggest something along the lines of

   Insofar as the local names in a namespace are themselves intended
   to serve as resource identifiers, [Good practice: QName Mapping]
   requires the owner of the namespace to provide a mapping from its
   local names to URIs.

ht

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState-2005-12-16.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDqFenkjnJixAXWBoRAj34AJsEzGm/TxFf8CSPpT7IZhLNVfwUqACgg5oJ
6ZI7XxbPADvTcqnPVNYaJ14=
=jDCh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 19:12:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:47 UTC